Shades of moral grey

I love how Moore plays with the morality of the superheroes in Watchmen. First, we've got the superheroes themselves - in the American psyche, superheroes are supposed to be the embodiment of all that is good. But the Watchmen (and their successors) have questionable motives and methods. They enter the superhero business not only from a sense of civic duty and a desire to fight for justice, but also for their own satisfaction and profit - except for Jon, these men and women don't even have superpowers.

Then, of course, there are the individual characters. The Comedian is violent, misogynist, power-hungry, and a rapist. Yet he is one of the few Watchmen to remain on the side of the US government, one of the few who is not cast out of society as a danger.

Roschach is wanted on several counts of murder, uses questionable rationalization for his actions, and is generally a wretched, ungrateful, unhelpful human being. Yet he sticks firmly to his morals (questionable though they may be), and Dan trusts him to help save the world.

And then there is, of course Ozymandias - Adrian Veidt. He's "the smartest man in the world," handsome, successful, helpful, everything you think a superhero is supposed to be. Yet - he chooses to kill half of New York, a cruise ship full of artists and thinkers and builders, and half of the Watchmen. He does it to save the world... but is he justified? Even putting aside the question of whether it would really work (Watchmen suggests it does), is it justifiable to make decisions for an entire species?

Not to mention Sally Jupiter's self-serving sexuality, or Dan's dependence and hero-worship, or any of the other all-too-human flaws of these superheroes. Moore paints a grey picture of morality: it's impossible to say who, of these heroes, is good, and who is evil, and what constitutes which.